Supreme Court of the United States · 2006-12-05
18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: comparator; posture: immigration removal (civil); BIA and CA8 held a South Dakota felony conviction for aiding and abetting cocaine possession an INA "aggravated felony" (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), which borrows the 924(c)(2) definition of "drug trafficking crime"); certiorari by the noncitizen; reversed and remanded. No 924(c) prosecution is involved; result: claimant-lost; claim: (c)(2)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
Comparator case (known misfit 1 and Moncrieffe's): the INA incorporates the 924(c)(2) definition, and the Court construes that definition to decide removability. `role comparator` cannot name the incorporating law (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B)); "claimant" is forced (the Government seeking the aggravated-felony label lost); no element of the 924(c) offense other than the predicate definition is touched, so no use/carry/firearm/nexus blocks are written.
The test compares a state offense with federal offense definitions, not facts with an element. The `fact` lines are the record of conviction, a characterization of the state offense's elements, and a Government concession about charging practice; polarity is relative to "the state offense is a CSA felony" and is nearly meaningless for the first line, whose state-felony sentence supports only the rejected reading (known misfit 6).
The parent `predicate` element's text ("for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States") is discussed in a footnote and in the dissent as a separate federal-crime limitation; that relation between `predicate` and `predicate.drug` is prose only.
The interpretation rests heavily on the ordinary meaning of the INA's own term "illicit trafficking" (commercial dealing), i.e. on the borrowing statute; how far the holding construes 924(c)(2) for 924(c) prosecutions themselves is stated by the Court (same phrase, same meaning) but cannot be flagged.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 13
| Case | Qualifying federal predicate offense | Firearm object | Active employment of a firearm | Knowingly possess and convey the firearm | During and in relation to the predicate | Knowing actual or constructive possession |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lopez v. Gonzales — 549 U.S. 47 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 13
| Case | Possession advances the specific predicate | Armor-piercing ammunition object | Use or carry the armor-piercing ammunition | Possess the armor-piercing ammunition | Section 2 aiding and abetting route | Greater minimum for the same firearm conduct displaces the lower minimum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lopez v. Gonzales — 549 U.S. 47 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–13 of 13
| Case | Sentencing consequences after offense proof |
|---|---|
| Lopez v. Gonzales — 549 U.S. 47 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lopez v. Gonzales — 549 U.S. 47 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — satisfied · law (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Enumerated federal drug felony | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / dissent basis: law; claim: (c)(2); count: South Dakota conviction; opinion: Thomas, J., dissenting; subject: count=South Dakota conviction; opinion=Thomas, J., dissenting Dissent reads the definition as two separate requirements (a felony under state or federal law; conduct punishable at all under the CSA) and treats the "may be prosecuted in a court of the United States" clause of (c)(1)(A) as the only federal-crime limit. | csa/state-felony-but-federal-misdemeanor-possession | Accordingly, by the plain terms of § 924(c)(2), conduct prohibited by the CSA may qualify as a “drug trafficking crime” if under either federal law or state law the conduct is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_549.jsonl#/us/549/0047-01; Unicode character offsets [25580:25805] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c5a4efdff6ab039d0f2e96dc61370983f283212699d67d060f5b4e290b367fb1.Lopez’s state felony offense qualifies as a “drug trafficking crime” as defined in § 924(c)(2).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_549.jsonl#/us/549/0047-01; Unicode character offsets [23550:23645] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c5a4efdff6ab039d0f2e96dc61370983f283212699d67d060f5b4e290b367fb1. |
| Lopez v. Gonzales — 549 U.S. 47 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not · law (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Enumerated federal drug felony | not Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: law; claim: (c)(2); count: South Dakota conviction, S.D. Codified Laws 22-42-5 / 22-3-3 (aiding and abetting possession of cocaine); theory: whether a state felony that the CSA punishes only as a misdemeanor is a "felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act"; subject: count=South Dakota conviction, S.D. Codified Laws 22-42-5 / 22-3-3 (aiding and abetting possession of cocaine); theory=whether a state felony that the CSA punishes only as a misdemeanor is a "felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" Construction of the (c)(2) definition in its borrowed INA setting: "felony punishable under the CSA" means punishable AS A FELONY under the CSA (more than one year), whatever the State calls it. Simple possession is a federal misdemeanor under 21 U.S.C. 844(a), so the state conviction is not a "drug trafficking crime". Nothing is found about any firearm conduct; the block says what kind of offense can serve as a 924(c) drug predicate. Federal possession felonies (cocaine base over five grams, recidivist possession) do qualify. | csa/state-felony-but-federal-misdemeanor-possession | In 1997, he was arrested on state charges in South Dakota, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting another person’s possession of cocaine, and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_549.jsonl#/us/549/0047-01; Unicode character offsets [2239:2422] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c5a4efdff6ab039d0f2e96dc61370983f283212699d67d060f5b4e290b367fb1.Commerce, however, was no part of Lopez’s South Dakota offense of helping someone else to possess, and certainly it is no element of simple possession, with which the State equates that crime.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_549.jsonl#/us/549/0047-01; Unicode character offsets [6650:6842] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c5a4efdff6ab039d0f2e96dc61370983f283212699d67d060f5b4e290b367fb1.Yet the Government admits it has never begun a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1)(A) where the underlying “drug trafficking crime” was a state felony but a federal misdemeanor.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_549.jsonl#/us/549/0047-01; Unicode character offsets [12180:12363] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c5a4efdff6ab039d0f2e96dc61370983f283212699d67d060f5b4e290b367fb1.Unless a state offense is punishable as a federal felony it does not count.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_549.jsonl#/us/549/0047-01; Unicode character offsets [9019:9094] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c5a4efdff6ab039d0f2e96dc61370983f283212699d67d060f5b4e290b367fb1.for purposes of § 924(c)(2) the crimes the CSA defines as “felonies” are those crimes to which it assigns a punishment exceeding one year’s imprisonment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_549.jsonl#/us/549/0047-01; Unicode character offsets [20029:20182] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c5a4efdff6ab039d0f2e96dc61370983f283212699d67d060f5b4e290b367fb1.In sum, we hold that a state offense constitutes a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under that federal law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_549.jsonl#/us/549/0047-01; Unicode character offsets [16281:16464] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c5a4efdff6ab039d0f2e96dc61370983f283212699d67d060f5b4e290b367fb1. |